Our present understanding of motor relearning and skill acquisition makes it very clear that an active stage of intensive and speed sensitive training is essential for the development of new movements. The field of rehabilitation is not different in that respect but, unfortunately, in many cases, the requirement for practice cannot be practically fulfilled because of the nature of the impairment, as well as, the tools required to enable such movement. For example, a person with paresis of the lower extremities may not be able to practice tasks needed to improve his/her impaired dynamic stability. Such tasks may include walking, jumping, side stepping, kicking a ball etc. Even with one or two people supporting that individual, the desired freedom of movement may not be achieved.
The gradual build-up, reshaping and refinement of motor skills are part of the process of acquiring skills. Skill-acquisition processes have been extensively studied in an effort to better understand what may facilitate the normal acquisition of skills and the acquisition of skills in the context of a rehabilitation programs. Intensive practice gradually leads to the automation of the learned skill and finally to successful incorporation of that skill into daily activities or sports activities—a process that should no longer be attention demanding.
In order to show progress in the development of the movement/action, the subject should practice efficiently and sufficiently. However, there is the problem of how to provide efficient and sufficient training of mobility and dynamic stability to someone who cannot safely stand on his/her own. What is needed is an apparatus that supports such movement in a safe manner; a mobility-assisting device whose main function is not just assisting the movement but also, primarily—enabling safe and speed sensitive training of the movement.
There are many walkers in the market that support the individual and thus make the task of walking easier. There are few devices and mechanisms that enable higher-level training in a safe environment. One such mechanism that provides Body Weight Support is disclosed in the article: A New Approach to Retrain Gait in Stroke Patients Through Body Weight Support and Treadmill Stimulation; Martha Visintin, Hugues Barbeau, Nicol Korner-Bitensky, and Nancy E. Mayo; Stroke, June 1998; 29: Pp. 1122–1128. This mechanism is typically very expensive, restricted to a treadmill and provides support from above—through a harness mechanism. It would be better to have a mechanism that allows more variability in training and supports the individual from underneath, thus allowing for freedom of movement in the trunk and lower extremities.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,578,594, issued Jun. 17, 2003, the contents of which are incorporated herein by reference, describes a mobile rehabilitative walker that may be moved by a user to allow for training of gait and dynamic stability. However, this device is not a body weight support mechanism in the sense that has a safety harness suspended from above. The harness is for preventing falls but is not designed to reduce the person weight while he/she moves. Furthermore, the harness is restrictive for forward and sideward movements, being framed at the front and sides, and does not provide an optimum enabling environment. U.S. Pat. No. 2,327,671, issued Aug. 24, 1943, the contents of which are incorporated herein by reference, seems to provide a better training environment than U.S. Pat. No. 6,578,594 in that it provides body weight support and free anterior space to mobilize i.e., the training person here would be able to take steps forward without the restriction of a frame and, also, engage in ball games that could further improve stability. However, U.S. Pat. No. 2,327,671 seems to lack a pelvis support mechanism that would allow for normal standing posture since a person without sufficient leg strength would be typically seated rather than standing with the type of standing harness described in U.S. Pat. No. 2,327,671. Furthermore, the base of the walker apparatus appears narrow and does not allow for free lateral movement.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,211,426, issued Jul. 8, 1980, the contents of which are incorporated herein by reference, describes a “weight relieving ambulator”. The type of support mechanism used in that invention—strapping around the trunk—would not allow for use by people with very weak lower extremities since their legs would be very likely to collapse. As well, the range of vertical movement of the harness is limited due to the structural construction of the “ambulator”. Furthermore, the base of the “ambulator” appears to limit lateral movement of the person.
An invention that supports walking is described in U.S. Pat. No. 4,188,966, issued Feb. 19, 1980, the contents of which are incorporated herein by reference. However, it appears to lack an adjustable pelvic support and, again, does not allow for free lateral movement of the person using it. In this particular invention, the trunk of the person is restricted in mobility.
What is needed in the mobility enhancement and rehabilitation field is a mobility assist that provides variable body weight support but also allows for maximum mobility of the trunk and extremities. Such device would also have an option of opening its base wide to allow for effective lateral mobility of the user.
The invention in its general form will first be described, and then its implementation in terms of specific embodiments will be detailed with reference to the drawings following hereafter. These embodiments are intended to demonstrate the principle of the invention, and the manner of its implementation. The invention in its broadest and more specific forms will then be further described, and defined, in each of the individual claims that conclude this Specification.